| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
| Date: | 2010-01-03 10:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20100103105531.GB11071@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:31:58PM -0500, Kris Jurka wrote:
> The JDBC driver does want "cancel if active" behavior. The JDBC API
> specifies Statement.cancel() where Statement is running one particular
> backend query. So it really does want to cancel just that one query.
> Already this is tough because of the asynchronous nature of the cancel
> protocol and the inability to say exactly what should be cancelled.
I've looked in the JDBC documentation but I don't quickly see how they
expect this to work with transactions. What is being proposed seems to
me to be:
If statement active:
put transaction in aborted state
If no statement active:
do nothing
However, I see that the documentation wants to be able to abort a
*specific* statement, which is not being proposed here. Can that be
implemented on top of the current proposal?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-01-03 12:00:33 | Re: exec_execute_message crash |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2010-01-03 10:48:56 | Re: So do we really *need* those substring() ops in tab-completion queries? |